Forums > Contests > It’s just too funny 😂

Photographer

3rd Stream Photo

Posts: 71

Cleveland, Tennessee, US

somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

Dec 18 23 03:44 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

I personally think there are many images that are mature by our site standards, but would probably not fare well in our 18+ image contest where gratuitous nudity tends to be rewarded with more votes. 

For anyone out there who is unsure, in the case of the image above, we can see the outfit is sheer, as we can see her panties through it.  But we cannot see any indication of her wearing a bra.  So if she moved her arm, her breast would be too visible.  Our site-wide mature image rules include nudity or sheer nudity that is blocked by an arm or leg or other body part.

Dec 19 23 04:16 pm Link

Photographer

3rd Stream Photo

Posts: 71

Cleveland, Tennessee, US

I personally think there are many images that are mature by our site standards, but would probably not fare well in our 18+ image contest where gratuitous nudity tends to be rewarded with more votes. 

For anyone out there who is unsure, in the case of the image above, we can see the outfit is sheer, as we can see her panties through it.  But we cannot see any indication of her wearing a bra.  So if she moved her arm, her breast would be too visible.  Our site-wide mature image rules include nudity or sheer nudity that is blocked by an arm or leg or other body part.

I agree with the first statement you made. On the second one I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic. If she moved her arm we might see her breast? In a still image??

Dec 19 23 08:07 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
I agree with the first statement you made. On the second one I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic. If she moved her arm we might see her breast? In a still image??

I'm not being sarcastic.  We don't allow "hand bras" or "arm bras" or similar.  So if the mature element is being blocked from view by a body part, but we believe it would be visible behind the body part, then it is considered implied nudity and mature for the contest.

EG:
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 7afb7b.jpg
This is mature and not eligible for the regular POTD contest because she is not wearing a bra or other clothes covering her nipples, even though we cannot see her nipples because her arm blocks our view.  In your image, the model is wearing a sheer outfit.   It is the same sort of situation, though with sheer clothing instead of no clothing.

Dec 19 23 10:02 pm Link

Photographer

3rd Stream Photo

Posts: 71

Cleveland, Tennessee, US

Erin Koski wrote:

I'm not being sarcastic.  We don't allow "hand bras" or "arm bras" or similar.  So if the mature element is being blocked from view by a body part, but we believe it would be visible behind the body part, then it is considered implied nudity and mature for the contest.

EG:
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 7afb7b.jpg
This is mature and not eligible for the regular POTD contest because she is not wearing a bra or other clothes covering her nipples, even though we cannot see her nipples because her arm blocks our view.  In your image, the model is wearing a sheer outfit.   It is the same sort of situation, though with sheer clothing instead of no clothing.

Yes, the naked model would show her nipple if she were posed in a different way, but she’s not. However, since she’s not wearing a top, and she’s covering her breasts on purpose with her arms, even though I   think it’s a stretch for a model website I get it. In my image though the model is simply posing, not purposely covering her breasts, the outfit appears to be much more sheer than it is, and there are sequins covering her breasts as well as other important parts. She is a large breasted woman and this “sheer” outfit in a different image doesn’t even show her cleavage because it’s not actually anywhere near fully sheer. I mean at this level of scrutiny it’s like we can see that she’s a female, strike one. She’s curvy and attractive, strike two. IF she were to take off her clothes, and IF she posed in an entirely different way, we MIGHT be able to see her nipples, STRIKE THREE!! In other words they can’t let my image into the competition because my model, dressed differently and posed differently, (which is the exact equivalent of an entirely different image) might show her nipples. I get you’re trying to help me understand, and I do sincerely appreciate it, but this is beyond ridiculous, especially when you look at todays beautiful POTD winner.

Dec 21 23 12:49 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
Yes, the naked model would show her nipple if she were posed in a different way, but she’s not. However, since she’s not wearing a top, and she’s covering her breasts on purpose with her arms, even though I   think it’s a stretch for a model website I get it. In my image though the model is simply posing, not purposely covering her breasts, the outfit appears to be much more sheer than it is, and there are sequins covering her breasts as well as other important parts. She is a large breasted woman and this “sheer” outfit in a different image doesn’t even show her cleavage because it’s not actually anywhere near fully sheer. I mean at this level of scrutiny it’s like we can see that she’s a female, strike one. She’s curvy and attractive, strike two. IF she were to take off her clothes, and IF she posed in an entirely different way, we MIGHT be able to see her nipples, STRIKE THREE!! In other words they can’t let my image into the competition because my model, dressed differently and posed differently, (which is the exact equivalent of an entirely different image) might show her nipples. I get you’re trying to help me understand, and I do sincerely appreciate it, but this is beyond ridiculous, especially when you look at todays beautiful POTD winner.

From our perspective it would not require her to change outfits for the image to be mature.  Her body type or appearance also did not matter, though you are right that being female does matter - as male nipples are not considered "mature" for the site.   If you disagree about the sheer nature of the outfit, please respond to the message you got, with a link to another image of the same outfit on the same model, that shows how not sheer it is from the front.  There is nothing wrong with asking for a decision to be reviewed.  Sometimes our decision changes with additional information. 

What we were able to see was a sheer outfit, a model not wearing a bra, and nipple blocked from view by arm.  That is why it was not allowed in the POTD contest.

Dec 21 23 01:59 pm Link

Photographer

G Wilson

Posts: 46

Dallas, Texas, US

Erin Koski wrote:
From our perspective it would not require her to change outfits for the image to be mature.  Her body type or appearance also did not matter, though you are right that being female does matter - as male nipples are not considered "mature" for the site.   If you disagree about the sheer nature of the outfit, please respond to the message you got, with a link to another image of the same outfit on the same model, that shows how not sheer it is from the front.  There is nothing wrong with asking for a decision to be reviewed.  Sometimes our decision changes with additional information. 

What we were able to see was a sheer outfit, a model not wearing a bra, and nipple blocked from view by arm.  That is why it was not allowed in the POTD contest.

What a bunch of BS... you have been disqualified for what we can't see... what might be there... How do these people become moderators? Modifiers would be a more apt term...

What about a nipple blocked from view by a bra?

Dec 24 23 09:58 am Link

Photographer

3rd Stream Photo

Posts: 71

Cleveland, Tennessee, US

Erin Koski wrote:

From our perspective it would not require her to change outfits for the image to be mature.  Her body type or appearance also did not matter, though you are right that being female does matter - as male nipples are not considered "mature" for the site.   If you disagree about the sheer nature of the outfit, please respond to the message you got, with a link to another image of the same outfit on the same model, that shows how not sheer it is from the front.  There is nothing wrong with asking for a decision to be reviewed.  Sometimes our decision changes with additional information. 

What we were able to see was a sheer outfit, a model not wearing a bra, and nipple blocked from view by arm.  That is why it was not allowed in the POTD contest.

So this image that leaves you to assume the model is nude , less than sheer, and for all any of us knows there’s a nipple hiding out behind that arm, this image is perfectly fine (and to be completely fair it’s a wonderful image and it deserved to win) for the POTD competition? https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/767479 This image belongs in the competition but so does the one I posted and countless others.

Dec 24 23 02:25 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

What about a nipple blocked from view by a bra?

I bet you know the answer to this question already,  because lots of images in the contest include women wearing opaque bras or bikinis.

If the model is wearing standard, non-sheer clothing that covers the mature elements, it is fine.

A model with only suspenders covering her nipples or only a necktie covering her nipples would not be allowed.

A model wearing a bra or swimsuit that covers nipples and does not have too much breast showing is okay. What is too much?  If the bra is made of sheer material, but the nipple is covered by a small piece of opaque fabric or embroidery or similar,  is probably too much. Ask a moderator before submitting.

Dec 25 23 09:38 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
So this image that leaves you to assume the model is nude , less than sheer, and for all any of us knows there’s a nipple hiding out behind that arm, this image is perfectly fine (and to be completely fair it’s a wonderful image and it deserved to win) for the POTD competition? https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/767479 This image belongs in the competition but so does the one I posted and countless others.

If the model could reasonably be wearing a tube top over her nipples,  as in the image you've linked,  then it is okay. If it's borderline or you aren't sure,  please ask before submitting.

Dec 25 23 09:40 pm Link

Photographer

3rd Stream Photo

Posts: 71

Cleveland, Tennessee, US

Erin Koski wrote:
If the model could reasonably be wearing a tube top over her nipples,  as in the image you've linked,  then it is okay. If it's borderline or you aren't sure,  please ask before submitting.

How can you be sure the model had a tube top on? And if it was borderline e or if I wasn’t sure I wouldn’t have submitted it period. And on the off chance I just missed something and submitted something that wasn’t allowed, and had received a reasonable explanation from a moderator I would have apologized and dropped the matter. None of those things have happened in the case of this submission or the explanations I’ve received. Now I’m wondering if I’m not being targeted for some reason as I just received an email that my 18+ submission was rejected and 5 points given because (due to recent changes in the rules) of too much emphasis on the genitals. It’s interesting how I could have placed “too much” emphasis on the model’s genitals when they were so completely in shadow you can barely tell they even show when zoomed in as close as you can get. https://photos.modelmayhem.com/contest/ … 18-big.jpg

Dec 26 23 07:21 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

I'm not sure the model is wearing a tube top. But i can't say she isn't. So it's allowable.

In your image,  the models knees are quite wide apart. Her genitals are in shadows, but are visible, including on a bright monitor.  There is nothing physically obscuring them from view.

You are not being targeted. Anyone submitting that same image would have received the same message.

Dec 27 23 12:41 pm Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 23769

Orlando, Florida, US

Ahhhhhh, the saga continues  .  .  .  even more murky rulings and the accompanying inane explanations to try and legitimize them after they've been rendered  .  .  .  I was afraid I may have missed something during my absence, but it's business as usual!

SOS

Dec 28 23 07:57 am Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

Yes it's the same. We have been evaluating images the same way for about a year now.

The current rules have been in place about a year.

Dec 28 23 09:39 am Link

Photographer

Weldphoto

Posts: 843

Charleston, South Carolina, US

Erin Koski wrote:
Yes it's the same. We have been evaluating images the same way for about a year now.

The current rules have been in place about a year.

,

The debate about the forum rules is never ending in large part because the rules are far too vague. The idea that a nipple is hidden under an arm or whatever makes it mature is simply absurd. Nipples and genitals are covered in most picture = we know they are there. Does that suggest it is an implied nude? I have no issue at all with keeping salacious images behind a wall. But what I suspect many would like to understand is this notion that a nipple is lurking behind a piece of cloth or even protruding against the cloth making its presence known.

Yet what about the idea that violent images are not allowed or need to be marked Mature. On your site you have an image of a man with a pistol pointed at his head, clearly a suicide suggestion. It is not market Mature.  Why not? https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/36353432

Dec 28 23 12:52 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

The nipples behind hands, or behind photoshopped elements like stars or stripes is already spelled out in our image rules.  If nipple pigment is visible through the clothing, then it's a mature image. That's in our rules as well. If the nipple is erect but the fabric is thick enough that no pigment can be seen through it, then it's not mature.

I'll ask the mod team if my image needs to be marked, and let you know results.  The argument could be made that this isn't a suicide reference, but a reference to the Joker character (who was comfortable holding a gun to his own head in several movie scenes and did not die).  But i do understand your concern & will mark it if needed.

Dec 28 23 01:19 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

It wasn't required, but in an abundance of caution I've marked it M.

Dec 28 23 06:42 pm Link

Photographer

Weldphoto

Posts: 843

Charleston, South Carolina, US

Erin Koski wrote:
It wasn't required, but in an abundance of caution I've marked it M.

You considered what I wrote, gave it some thought and took what I think was the correct action. All this without a single snarky remark. Perhaps this is a good model of how this forum is at its best. Thank you.

Dec 28 23 08:09 pm Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 23769

Orlando, Florida, US

I'll ask the mod team if my image needs to be marked, and let you know results.  The argument could be made that this isn't a suicide reference, but a reference to the Joker character (who was comfortable holding a gun to his own head in several movie scenes and did not die).  But i do understand your concern & will mark it if needed.

There is no argument, if even one viewer of that image sees it as a suicide reference, then by simple definition it is  .  .  .  as an aside, one of the actors who portrayed the Joker character did indeed die under less than normal circumstances  .  .  .  what's that old adage about those who live in glass houses  .  .  .

SOS

Dec 29 23 07:55 am Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 23769

Orlando, Florida, US

Erin Koski wrote:
Yes it's the same. We have been evaluating images the same way for about a year now.

The current rules have been in place about a year.

Continuing to use a flawed system without upgrades (for whatever time period) seems a bit senseless now doesn't it!  The wonderful thing about the anonymity that the cyber universe provides, is that one's true identity and background are practically impenetrable, and creates a level playing field for discussion on a full range of topics, and by those with vastly differing experience levels  .  .  .  so, say one participant has curated art/design/photography exhibits nationally and internationally for many years in a wide variety of venues and situations, and has decades of experience traversing the intricacies involved in successfully navigating the culling process that's necessary to creating successful exhibits (auctions, showings, publications, etc .  .  .  ), and the other participant doesn't, does that mean there isn't any common ground?  Hopefully not, having these types of interactions is exactly what the forums should be about  .  .  .  now, when does that next Bowl game come on, I'm in need of some mindless entertainment  .  .  .

SOS

Dec 29 23 08:25 am Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

Happy New Year everyone!  I hope 2024 will be artistic and fulfilling for you!

Dec 31 23 12:57 pm Link

Photographer

KenPhoto

Posts: 107

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

Don't feel too bad. I had this image removed because the mods claimed the top of her leotard was sheer:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48217828

The model is a dance instructor and had supplied the leotard for the shoot herself. When I told her they were saying the top was sheer, she replied, "What’s that’s crazy lol it has a lining my students wear this style of leotard all the time." She sent photos, holding it up to a light to show it had a modesty panel lining in it, which I sent to the mods. They still wouldn't budge sad

Feb 21 24 08:22 am Link

Photographer

Images By TC

Posts: 34

Macon, Georgia, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

In my observation,certain photographers get the Green Light with their photo submissions.
You have to be in the "Click"

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 97-big.jpg
I had this photo removed and was given point that led to a 30 day suspension.
And a photo was accepted with the imprint of the model's nipples showing in her top!
I have been a member her for 17 years.

Feb 27 24 10:16 am Link

Photographer

Studio NSFW

Posts: 756

Pacifica, California, US

“Clique”

Feb 28 24 07:06 am Link

Photographer

David L. Stevens

Posts: 1129

Jacksonville, Florida, US

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
somebody please help me figure this one out. I just had this removed from the POTD contest (no points given thankfully) for the usual “at least one mature image element” thing, with the suggestion that I post it in the 18+ POTD…can you imagine the laughs that would get?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg

Welcome to Christian Mingle

Feb 29 24 03:37 am Link

Photographer

KenPhoto

Posts: 107

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

Images By TC wrote:
In my observation,certain photographers get the Green Light with their photo submissions.
You have to be in the "Click"

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 97-big.jpg
I had this photo removed and was given point that led to a 30 day suspension.
And a photo was accepted with the imprint of the model's nipples showing in her top!
I have been a member her for 17 years.

I could be wrong, and maybe one of the mods will chime in and either correct me or say I'm right, but I think your image was probably considered mature because of how much pubic area is showing (the bottoms appearing to be somewhat sheer), not the top. They've been pretty strict on that.

Mar 04 24 02:53 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

KenPhoto wrote:
I could be wrong, and maybe one of the mods will chime in an either correct me or say I'm right, but I think your image was probably considered mature because of how much pubic area is showing (the bottoms appearing to be somewhat sheer), not the top. They've been pretty strict on that.

I agree.  The image in question looks like a model wearing sheer lace panties, which show some pubic area through the lace.  We're strict on that.  Nipples poking up through cloth that is thick enough will be fine.  Thick enough means we cannot see any pigment through the cloth.  Most common DQs on this point are wet white cloth, but there are other fabrics that aren't white or wet but are thin enough some pigment is visible through the fabric. Those are considered mature also.

Mar 05 24 10:53 am Link

Photographer

Dorola

Posts: 479

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

No vag and no anus and they suspened me again. Did I break the rules?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/983062

Mar 12 24 05:58 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

Dorola wrote:
No vag and no anus and they suspened me again. Did I break the rules?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/983062

You don't include a link to the image you submitted, but if it's the one I just responded to you on, then it would be this rule:

*Back up or zoom out. Tightly framed images that show genitals won't be allowed.

Mar 12 24 10:18 pm Link

Photographer

Dorola

Posts: 479

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Erin Koski wrote:
You don't include a link to the image you submitted, but if it's the one I just responded to you on, then it would be this rule:

*Back up or zoom out. Tightly framed images that show genitals won't be allowed.

I challenge you to show me where genitals are in my photo, When you allow this photo

https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/388401

that clearly shows the models genital and reject my photo that doesn't show them, you are unnecessarily biased.

Mar 15 24 09:58 am Link

Model

MatureModelMM

Posts: 2843

Detroit, Michigan, US

Erin, I would like to hear your thoughts as well, based upon the fact that I had one rejected yesterday, which was framed very similar to the photo linked as reference in the post just above this, so I'm curious as well how that one got in when mine didn't.

Here's the one they disallowed, saying it was "too close" but you can't see anything which should be considered offensive, in my opinion.  Even if the photo was taken from a further distance it wouldn't change what is visible and what isn't.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47802995

Mar 15 24 10:08 am Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

Dorola wrote:
I challenge you to show me where genitals are in my photo, When you allow this photo

https://www.modelmayhem.com/contests/po … iew/388401

that clearly shows the models genital and reject my photo that doesn't show them, you are unnecessarily biased.

The image you've linked (which was allowed) was backed up more than your image.  Feel free to submit an image where the model takes up this much of the composition, and not more.

Your image included labia visible.

Mar 15 24 01:34 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

MatureModelMM wrote:
Erin, I would like to hear your thoughts as well, based upon the fact that I had one rejected yesterday, which was framed very similar to the photo linked as reference in the post just above this, so I'm curious as well how that one got in when mine didn't.

Here's the one they disallowed, saying it was "too close" but you can't see anything which should be considered offensive, in my opinion.  Even if the photo was taken from a further distance it wouldn't change what is visible and what isn't.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47802995

Your image is very borderline for closeness.  What we're going to look at here is how close is the top of the image to the top of your head, and how close is the bottom of the image to your crotch.  We would allow an image where the viewpoint was backed up a little more.   

While I agree backing up won't show less than what's already visible, the argument could be made that I could take a close-up of your crotch and that would not be showing any more than what's already visible in this image, but of course we have to have some cut-off for how close is a disqualification and how pulled back is allowable. Your image is close to the line, but a little too tightly cropped.

Mar 15 24 01:39 pm Link

Photographer

Dorola

Posts: 479

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Erin Koski wrote:

Your image is very borderline for closeness.  What we're going to look at here is how close is the top of the image to the top of your head, and how close is the bottom of the image to your crotch.  We would allow an image where the viewpoint was backed up a little more.   

While I agree backing up won't show less than what's already visible, the argument could be made that I could take a close-up of your crotch and that would not be showing any more than what's already visible in this image, but of course we have to have some cut-off for how close is a disqualification and how pulled back is allowable. Your image is close to the line, but a little too tightly cropped.

I want to know who in the administration of this site that I can contact to get this situation reviewed from a higher level. I have the highest regard for the site implementing the changes a year ago and even suggested it much earlier. However, I believe that you have become over-zelous. I've even had avatars taken down (as mature content) that were easily accepted on Facebook and Instagram. There is something broken here.

Mar 16 24 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

Dorola wrote:
I want to know who in the administration of this site that I can contact to get this situation reviewed from a higher level. I have the highest regard for the site implementing the changes a year ago and even suggested it much earlier. However, I believe that you have become over-zelous. I've even had avatars taken down (as mature content) that were easily accepted on Facebook and Instagram. There is something broken here.

It's a frequent complaint that images that are allowed on FB or IG or some other social media site are considered mature on Model Mayhem. That is not going to change unless Google changes its requirements for Model Mayhem's app to remain in the Google Play store.  Our over-zealous approach is specifically due to their requirements.  And we 100% understand these other social media apps are also in their store, but this were the requirements given to Model Mayhem and what we're going to abide by.  We already tried to get something more lenient and we did not succeed. 

Feel free to use our Contact a Moderator and request someone else to discuss it with you, but they are going to have the same information.

Mar 16 24 05:31 pm Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 23769

Orlando, Florida, US

Erin Koski wrote:

3rd Stream Photo wrote:
I agree with the first statement you made. On the second one I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic. If she moved her arm we might see her breast? In a still image??

I'm not being sarcastic.  We don't allow "hand bras" or "arm bras" or similar.  So if the mature element is being blocked from view by a body part, but we believe it would be visible behind the body part, then it is considered implied nudity and mature for the contest.



Don't ya hate it when your own words come back ta bite ya in the butt  .  .  .

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 74-big.jpg

.  .  .  beautiful image, very deserving to win the contest, but  .  .  .

SOS

Mar 19 24 11:43 am Link

Photographer

KenPhoto

Posts: 107

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

sospix wrote:
Don't ya hate it when your own words come back ta bite ya in the butt  .  .  .

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 74-big.jpg

.  .  .  beautiful image, very deserving to win the contest, but  .  .  .

SOS

I kind of wondered about that one as well. I agree it's a great photo, but it's difficult to know for sure where the model's areola begins, thus not knowing if she's covering it with her arms or if her dress is covering it. I've had similar images rejected because of that exact reason.

It also looks to me (and admit I could be wrong) that the dress goes below the model's left breast. Thus if she removed her arms the left breast would be fully exposed. But don't take this as me wanting the image removed from the contest. I actually think we should give all images similar to this the benefit of the doubt.

Mar 19 24 12:57 pm Link

Photographer

JQuest

Posts: 2448

Syracuse, New York, US

KenPhoto wrote:
I actually think we should give all images similar to this the benefit of the doubt.

There in lies a large part of the problem with the subjective evaluation of these images. rather than afford images that are on the edge the benefit of the doubt, the default method is in the negative, ie: we're not certain, so it is removed and the member that submitted it is penalized. Rather than, we're not sure so we will allow it with a warning..

This image submission is a perfect example of the "what we think we see" so it's out process;
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/potd/ent … 95-big.jpg
The justification for removal, "we can see the outfit is sheer, as we can see her panties through it.  But we cannot see any indication of her wearing a bra.  So if she moved her arm, her breast would be too visible."

However if you look at her ankle she has a tattoo, and where the tattoo disappears under her outfit at the ankle there is no ink visible through the supposed sheer material. Were her arm to be moved nothing would be seen, the bodysuit is opaque, the color is beige or tan, sometimes referred to as nude. This image is an example of one that should have been given the benefit of the doubt, but that's not how the moderation for this contest works. It's also one of the reasons there are so many complaints and the number of entries has continued to dwindle, members just get fed up and walk away.

Mar 19 24 07:40 pm Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 23769

Orlando, Florida, US

Yep, really makes it difficult to take anything the "Mods" have to say as far as explanation for their farcical rulings seriously, obviously they can't even interpret their own murky rules consistently  .  .  .  just to be clear the second paragraph in my initial post was from one of the Mods as way of explanation further up in the thread, my contribution was the last part of the posting  .  .  .  having had multiple entries bounced from participating in the contests (and been awarded quite the total of "demerits" for just trying to join in), and upon questioning the reasoning for the disqualifications, had multiple "explanations" rendered (in most cases each contradictory to the one before) until the "last word" always seems to be that I shouldn't attempt to participate (strange for a site that depends on participation for it's own existence) in any of the contests anymore  .  .  .  it's ego crushing to have to relive the embarrassment of being expelled from kindergarten over and over again  .  .  .  wink

SOS

Mar 20 24 01:42 pm Link

Photographer

Erin Koski

Posts: 24156

Ojai, California, US

Sometimes we make mistakes.  I think the image linked above is probably one we should have removed (where the arms are covering the breasts and it's not likely the dress is completey covering both areolas and nipples). 

We are doing everythign we can to be consistent.  I wish I had a way of showing you the work that we do, but I don't have a good way to do that. 

The dress that is nude colored - I agree it's opaque over the tattoo, but if you look where the panties are, we can clearly see her panties, so you can't suggest the entire dress is opaque.  If you had come to the discussion including an image of the dress from the front, showing the nipples are not visible and have not been digitally removed or covered up, then we might have gone back and allowed the image in figure submission.  Without evidence, the dress very much looks to me to be sheer in the breast area.

If I believe the image is allowable, I will vote to allow it.  If we aren't sure if the model is nude or not nude, and if I can imagine a way in which the model is not nude and the image we see is the result, I will vote to allow the image, even if I think the model really is nude in the image.  This mostly comes up on head-shots that are cropped very low, just above a woman's nipples.

Mar 20 24 02:22 pm Link